Well, seeing as the SSB has had its fair share of the more contemporary issues faced in our lovely world, I thought I'd finally round it off with a more... sensitive topic. In North America, at least, this subject seems to carry more weight than other political issues, like Gay Marriage (which of course is still up there ).

This is the topic to discuss your viewpoint on this medical practice and having a friendly debate. Emphasis on the friendly part ;D. Like the Religion topic, I (and likely the rest of the Mod Team), will consider this topic high priority: so breaking SSB rules or rules in general will have stiffer consequences.

Personally, when it comes to the two main-camps of Abortion debate, I side on Pro-Choice. It is my view that human life rests in cognition of thought and existence, past in cases where diseases debilitate the brain, but not future when a child/fetus has not developed beyond a particular threshold. Rickety wording, I know, but any definition of life is difficult to pin down. The rights of a mother should outweigh those of an unborn child, especially in cases where pregnancy is life-threatening. Like any 'moral subject', this comes with a 'butttt, ya know' argument.

"Well, ZE, what about women who are careless on purpose and are just like 'WELP TIEM 4 DAMAGE CONTROL, LOL'", While I find that reasoning disgusting, it remains that they have that choice. I believe any woman has a right to what she does with her own body, regardless of the situation, and anything sanctioning the control or monitoring of her choices by arbitrary third parties should be what people truly find obscene.

Discuss.

_________________It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

For a while I took a pretty neutral stance on this case. It helped when I wrote a paper on it in English that I wasn't biased on either side. XD

At times, I'm still on the fence, because on one hand it's implied we have the freedom of choice, and on another it's a potential life that we're taking here? I mean, the moment a fetus is considered a life is such a convoluted debate, though, so even on that front I'm unsure. So I tend to lean towards Pro-Choice.

I dunno, when it boils down to it for me, it really depends on the situation. If the mother can't take care of it? If she could become ill and die because her body can't carry? If it's a product of rape and the father won't cough up? Absolutely, go for it. I dunno what I would do if I ever was put into that situation, but you know what? I believe we should certainly be given the choice whether to go through with it or not.

All the politicians who push anti-abortion legislation only see pregnant teens who have unprotected sex. They almost never consider any alternatives, and that way of thinking only makes things worse, when I'm almost certain they're trying to help, in a way.

For quite a while I've said that you can't determine whether or not abortion is moral because there are strong moral arguments on both sides. Mother's rights versus the child's rights (which is in itself a sick duel, I think). It highlights, to me, why it should be a full-family decision, but doesn't do much more than that. If the mother is facing death... I don't know. What of death by way of inability to bear the child of a rapist? Could you face that? As a man who believes this is the only life we have, I'm not sure I could, and that's not accounting for the emotional trauma of the rape itself.

But what of the child's point of view? The so-called right to life? It's so incredibly improbable that any of us should be standing here today that I can't bring myself to condone the aborting of a pregnancy. Suppose you'd never been born. Just try to embrace that thought. Granted, you wouldn't be around to care, but it's a cold thought to think as a person who has lived now for several years. For the religious, there's no reason to assume that you as you are would have ever appeared somewhere else down the line; we know this because of how genes and dialects affect personality.

The statistics tell us that abortion's legalization has led to improved health among the poor and a less volatile society on the whole. Fewer children are being raised under parents who simply do not care - an existence I would not wish on any person. At the expense of certain potential humans, we are seeing the lives of many more being significantly improved. Really, abortion breaks down to the old question of killing one man to save a thousand, albeit on a lesser scale.

In the end, I support its legalization, but I can't condone it on moral grounds excepting certain rarer cases. My view, of course, is an idealistic one in which the problems faced by children who would otherwise be aborted do not exist. I think, ideally, children shouldn't have to be aborted. I think it's also foolish to gloss over the fact that we're programmed to procreate. Who has ever said that sex does not feel good, aside from the occasional crotchety old geezer who thinks it never should? I can endorse contraception on the grounds that it prevents the process for birth from ever being started; that's no worse than masturbation, in my book.

So, to me, it doesn't matter when life starts. It matters when the potential does.

_________________Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do.So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

~Samuel Clemens

Queen Rutela

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:41 pmPosts: 48Gender:

Re: Abortion • Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:27 pm

Deku Lord wrote:

But what of the child's point of view? The so-called right to life? It's so incredibly improbable that any of us should be standing here today that I can't bring myself to condone the aborting of a pregnancy. Suppose you'd never been born. Just try to embrace that thought.

This is a very good point, coming from a person who’s best friend was almost aborted as a baby. It definitely opens up a new way of thinking on this issue for me- “What if this person never existed? How would life be different? How many people has this person impacted? etc...”. The questions regarding this person’s life can literally reel endlessly in my mind.

I think abortion is considered right or wrong for a lot of people based on when they believe life starts. I personally believe life starts at conception, so I believe abortion is always wrong. Don’t get me wrong, I am for women’s (or any other person’s) rights (after all, I am one). But I think there has to be a limit somewhere. In my opinion, just because people have freedom/free choice, doesn’t mean they have unlimited rights, even over themselves. Where I live, it’s illegal for a woman to go shirtless. She can’t tell the authorities, it’s my body, I can express myself how I want to. There’s a wall as to far how she can take her rights. I think abortion should be treated the same way. At some point, a boundary should be drawn. I feel like someday the “it’s all about my rights” sort of thinking has a potential to go out of hand, always saying, “It’s my right to...”. How could government have any authority if there were no limitations? How would society ultimately end up functioning?

Oh, and just a little extra thought regarding abortion that makes me think:In America, Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife and was charged with murdering of two people. As a result, a law was passed that says any child, at no matter what stage of development in the womb, is a legal victim if killed. That leaves some conflict with abortion. Why is voluntarily choosing to terminate a baby in the womb any better than having it murdered by somebody else? How could the American government even consider legalizing the termination of any unborn if it’s not okay to kill that same unborn, regardless of the development stage? Why is it completely legal sometimes, and punishable by death other times?

Thoughts? Very interested to know how other people feel about this and this whole topic in general.

Abortion is violating the unborn child's right to live. if it's endangering the life of the mother, then I'm not sure. Same thing if the mother was a a victim of rape. I'm not sure where to stand on that. But if both the child's parents are capable of taking care of the child with not much more struggle, then abortion would be wrong. So I'm against abortion, unless it's an extraordinary case.

_________________

Illumen

Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 2:05 amPosts: 11Location: VirginiaGender:

Re: Abortion • Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 12:29 pm

Personally, I'm Pro-Choice.I don't think it's right by any means to use it as a form of birth control. But if a woman doesn't want to put her body through the strain of pregnancy and childbirth after she's taken very precautionary methods, I don't believe she should have to.

Personally, I'm Pro-Choice.I don't think it's right by any means to use it as a form of birth control. But if a woman doesn't want to put her body through the strain of pregnancy and childbirth after she's taken very precautionary methods, I don't believe she should have to.

This. I agree. Sort of. If the mother's life is endangered by giving birth to the child after taking every other method possible, then she can choose. But that should be the only reason why abortion should happen. (Unless the mother knows that she's giving birth to the anti-christ or something).

_________________

Deku Lord

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:40 pmPosts: 2342Location: EarthGender:

Re: Abortion • Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:55 am

Ninten* wrote:

Abortion is violating the unborn child's right to live. if it's endangering the life of the mother, then I'm not sure. Same thing if the mother was a a victim of rape. I'm not sure where to stand on that. But if both the child's parents are capable of taking care of the child with not much more struggle, then abortion would be wrong. So I'm against abortion, unless it's an extraordinary case.

So the mother's "right to live" outweighs that of the unborn child? Why is the mother and her health even a consideration in this matter? It's something I've never understood.

I see it everywhere, really; "if the mother would die, then it's fine to abort," and I think that's about as backwards as it gets. The mother has had a chance to live, and the child has not; if there is a reasonable chance that the child would live healthily, the mother should bear it, emotional trauma and death be damned. It is nothing short of selfish to cut off the potential life of one so that another's will be lengthened, regardless of the method of impregnation; to me, this is throwing the child under the metaphorical bus. The fact that the mother would die if the child were not aborted should only be taken into consideration when the child has no chance, or when there is a near-certainty of a life-shortening birth defect.

Ninten* wrote:

If the mother's life is endangered by giving birth to the child after taking every other method possible, then she can choose. But that should be the only reason why abortion should happen. (Unless the mother knows that she's giving birth to the anti-christ or something).

Why does the mother's degree of carefulness matter? Why does it matter whose fault the pregnancy is, and why does it matter whether or not the child is desired? These questions are irrelevant; the issue in this twisted debate is whether or not a mother should be allowed to cancel the life of her own, future child. What difference does it make whether she wanted the pregnancy? What difference does it make to the issue at hand if she was raped? I cannot begin to fathom the emotional trauma that would come from everyday life with that child, but I have equal trouble understanding why one wouldn't be willing to bear that burden if it meant another life could be brought into the world. I can understand those that do not wish to die to birth a child; facing down death cannot be an easy endeavour. However, it is my contention that death should be faced to make way for new life; if childbirth is not a noble way to die, I do not know what is.

_________________Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do.So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

This. I agree. Sort of. If the mother's life is endangered by giving birth to the child after taking every other method possible, then she can choose. But that should be the only reason why abortion should happen. (Unless the mother knows that she's giving birth to the anti-christ or something).

So, the mother's life would be more important than the child's life? Why should one person's well-being outweigh that of another person's well-being despite the stage of development. The child has no choice to even choose, but it doesn't seem fair (or right) that others get to choose for them despite a crime or even "health" reasons.

Also, there's no way a woman would know their kid's going to be like that (anti-christ or Hitler or some dictator). Not that it matters, we can't know how that kid would end up no matter's whose kid it is (if say, the kid's dad was a rapist). Someone once asked me if a child should have to pay for the wrong things their parents (or others) did, and the obvious answer is no. That goes the same for an unborn child, and you don't know who that kid might become or what good she/he could do (nor what evil, yes, I know), but the point is, what is better, to give them a chance or to take it away?

This. I agree. Sort of. If the mother's life is endangered by giving birth to the child after taking every other method possible, then she can choose. But that should be the only reason why abortion should happen. (Unless the mother knows that she's giving birth to the anti-christ or something).

So, the mother's life would be more important than the child's life? Why should one person's well-being outweigh that of another person's well-being despite the stage of development. The child has no choice to even choose, but it doesn't seem fair (or right) that others get to choose for them despite a crime or even "health" reasons.

Also, there's no way a woman would know their kid's going to be like that (anti-christ or Hitler or some dictator). Not that it matters, we can't know how that kid would end up no matter's whose kid it is (if say, the kid's dad was a rapist). Someone once asked me if a child should have to pay for the wrong things their parents (or others) did, and the obvious answer is no. That goes the same for an unborn child, and you don't know who that kid might become or what good she/he could do (nor what evil, yes, I know), but the point is, what is better, to give them a chance or to take it away?

what makes the "child" soo muich more important than the mother?what makes it sooo valuable? what if the mother is a child herself?

parent make choices for their children all the time. SOme parent circumcise their children. some even deny life support to their severely disabled children. i don't see anybody whining about how "unfair" it is. life isn;t fair.

i take it that if you were pregnant and would die in childbirth unless you got an abortion, you would be willing to sacrifice your life to save the pwecious "child". If not, you are a major hypocrite.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum